WCM 2003 Summary. Rev. 2005.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RF-Akvamiljø Børseth, Jan Fredrik1 and Tollefsen, Knut-Erik2 1) RF-Akvamiljø, 2) NIVA Water Column Monitoring 2003 - Summary Report Report RF – 2004/039 Project number: 715 1686 Project Quality Assurance: Odd-Ketil Andersen, RF-Akvamiljø Ketil Hylland, NIVA Client(s): Norsk Hydro Produksjon AS on behalf of OLF WCM coordination group Distribution restriction: Confidential © This document may only be reproduced with the permission of RF or the client. RF - Rogaland Research has a certified Quality System in compliance with the standard NS - EN ISO 9001 RF – Rogaland Research. http://www.rf.no Preface This is the summary report of the Water Column Monitoring 2003 project. The project has been a collaboration project between RF-Akvamiljø and Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) with several sub-contractors. The sub-contractors have been The Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), University of Stockholm. Other contributors to the project, but coordinated directly from Norsk Hydro and OLF have been Ocean Climate a/s and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, represented by the crew onboard R/V Sarsen. In addition to the expertise given by Bjørn Serigstad, Ocean Climate a/s with regard to the technical part of the fish and mussel caging, he contributed with valuable comments to the cruise report. This has been the first regular water column monitoring survey in the North Sea and it was based on guidelines given from the BECPELAG Workshop in 2001. We would like to thank a number of people at the different companies and institutes that have contributed to make this a valuable project. Pre-exposure sampling: Sigurd Øxnevad (NIVA), Rolf Sundt (RF-Akvamiljø), Veslemøy Eriksen (RF- Akvamiljø) and Anne Helene Tandberg (RF-Akvamiljø). Survey I: Espen E. Hoell (Norsk Hydro) for technical advice and highly appreciated help under all surveys. Bjørn Serigstad (Ocean Climate a/s), Vidar Saue (Ocean Climate a/s), Dag Altin (Biotrix da.), Rolf Sundt (RF-Akvamiljø) Survey II: Espen E. Hoell (Norsk Hydro), Rolf Sundt (RF), Sigurd Øxnevad (NIVA), Tom Christian Mortensen (NIVA), Hans-Petter Mannvik (Akvaplan-NIVA), Alexandra Abrahamson (Fiskerihøgskolen i Tromsø/ University of Uppsala), Anne O. Steen (NTNU). Analytical work: NIVA: Merete Grung, Alfhild Kringstad, Anders Ruus, Harry Efraimsen, Aase Kristine Rogne. RF-Akvamiljø: Lars Petter Myhre, Anne Bjørnstad, Harald Berland, Grete Jonsson, Anne Helene Tandberg, Sigfryd Torgrimsen and Kjell Birger Øysæd. CEFAS: Steve Feist, Grant Stentiford and John Bignell. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU): Ionan Marigomez, Beñat. Zaldibar, Eider Bilbao, Amaia Orbea, Manu Soto, Ibon Cancio, Miren P. Cajaraville. University of Stockholm: Lennart Balk and Halldora Skarphedinsdottir Stavanger / Oslo, 29. April 2005 Jan Fredrik Børseth, Knut-Erik Tollefsen, coordinator & project leader RF-Akvamiljø project leader NIVA RF – Rogaland Research. http://www.rf.no Contents 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 4 2 OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE FOR THE WORK ...................................................... 5 3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN................................................................................................ 5 4 RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Fish.............................................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Vitellogenin (vtg)........................................................................................... 8 4.1.2 PAH metabolites ............................................................................................ 9 4.1.3 EROD activity.............................................................................................. 10 4.1.4 GST activity ................................................................................................. 11 4.1.5 DNA adducts................................................................................................ 12 4.1.6 Histochemistry ............................................................................................. 13 4.1.7 Histopathology ............................................................................................. 14 4.2 Mussels...................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Body burden of NPD, 16 EPA PAHs and decalins...................................... 16 4.2.2 BaPH activity ............................................................................................... 18 4.2.3 Lysosomal response ..................................................................................... 19 4.2.4 Histochemistry ............................................................................................. 20 4.2.5 Histopathology ............................................................................................. 22 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... 23 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 26 RF – Rogaland Research. http://www.rf.no 1 Introduction Organisms living in the water column around offshore oil and gas production facilities are predominantly exposed to chemicals through discharge of production water (OLF 2000). The amount and composition of produced water (PW) varies from field to field, but is generally a mixture of: a) formation water contained naturally in the reservoir, b) injected water used for secondary oil recovery and c) treatment chemicals added during production (Røe 1998). Typically, produced water contains dissolved inorganic salts, minerals and heavy metals together with dissolved and dispersed oil components and other organic compounds. The specific chemical composition varies between reservoirs and within a reservoir as production proceeds. A target chemical characterisation of four offshore oil production platforms in the North Sea showed that the major organic components were BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), NPD (naphtalenes, phenanthrenes and dibenzothiophenes), PAHs (polyaromatic hydro- carbons), organic acids, alkylphenols (APs) and phenols (Røe and Johnsen 1996; Utvik 1999). As a natural consequence of well exploitation, oil content in the reservoirs will decrease and the need to inject water will increase, thus eventually leading to increase in the discharges of PW. A recent report estimate that the total discharges of PW in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea will increase from approximately 130 million m3/year in 2002 to 180 million m3/year in 2011 followed by stabilisation and decrease in discharges (SFT 2004). Some of the organic chemicals found in PW are relatively resistant to biodegradation, have a bioaccumulation potential and may be toxic to organisms in receiving waters (Brendehaug et al. 1992; Tollefsen et al. 1998; Taban and Børseth 2000; Aas et al. 2000). This applies in particular to groups of chemicals such as alkylphenols (APs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are known to produce various toxic effects including reproductive disturbances, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity (Landahl et al. 1990; Bechmann 1999; Lye 2000; Meier et al. 2002). Recent studies from the ICES workshop “Biological effects of contaminants in the pelagic ecosystem (BECPELAG)” indicate that toxic compounds are detectable several kilometres away from a North Sea oil production platform using in vitro bioassays (Thomas et al. In press; Tollefsen et al. In press) and biomarkers (Balk et al. In press; Regoli et al. In press; Aas et al. In press). Although there is reason to assume that many of the chemicals that are present in PW effluents may produce biological responses, the ability to assess the potential for adverse effects are limited by the lack of sufficient in situ monitoring data using biological effects methods with endpoints reflecting long term (ecological) effects. Biological indicators or markers (biomarkers) have been developed to measure the biological response related to an exposure to, or the toxic effect of, an environmental chemical (Peakall 1992). Some biomarkers are specific in terms of their ability to detect and assess the potential for effects through a specific toxic mechanism, whereas others give information about larger groups of chemicals with more diverse mechanisms of action. Common for all of the methods is the capability of performing time-integrating - 4 - RF – Rogaland Research. http://www.rf.no response assessment to complex mixtures over extended periods of time, which is often required in environmental monitoring. Since most of these methods are highly sensitive and responses occur at lower concentrations and/or prior in time to more adverse effects at a higher organisation level, the methods have become convenient early-warning tools for assessing the potential for long term (ecological) effects. The use of biomarkers in sentinel species or specific caging systems with keystone species has consequently facilitated the implementation of such methods in various environmental monitoring